More reasons for mandatory sentencing

It's a pity you don't appear to have taken the time to read and understand the subject of the Irish Times poll you linked to.

The question posed in the poll is "Does the high rate of reoffending by former prisoners indicate the penal system is failing?" which as I'm sure posters will appreciate is different to proposing that the solution to the problem is mandatory sentencing.

Interestingly, the first poster listed after the poll results includes this comment : "The question asked is so populist and inflammatory as to do an injustice to this particular newspaer [sic] and is more fitting of the garbage that garnishes the front page of comics like the Star and the Mirror"

Maybe Ms. Kennedy is listening, but I suspect she isn't, having effectively turned the Irish Times Magazine into a girl's Saturday comic. As a consequence I no longer take the Irish Times on Saturdays.
 

Just on saturdays?
 

FYI. Previous posters who raised the issue of the penal system.
 
censuspro said:
Yes it has worked. It has worked in the sense that career criminals are safely locked away where they cannot ply their trade on the rest of society.
Click to expand...

Yes because there is no-one that is going to take their place....
 
censuspro said:
So what you're saying is that there's no point in putiing people in prison because they'll just be replaced by more criminals...
Click to expand...

As I think you know, what I'm saying is putting more people in prison for longer sentances is unlikely to be effective in reducing crime rates, as other younger (more violent, more reckless) criminals will rise up to fill the vacuum. But seriously, you told us that 'it has worked'. Where did this happen?
 

Prisons are not designed to stop people from committing crime or re-offending, they are designed to house people who commit crime.

There is no evidence that shows any link between crime rates and rates of imprisonment. Why do we constantly refer to crime rates as an indicator for prison sentencing when there is no link between the two.
 
Complainer said:
But seriously, you told us that 'it has worked'. Where did this happen?
Click to expand...

It has "worked" in keeping people locked up. Read my previous posts, prison are not designed to prevent people from re-offending.

Where has it not "worked"?
 
censuspro said:
It has "worked" in keeping people locked up. Read my previous posts, prison are not designed to prevent people from re-offending.
Click to expand...
When you said 'it has worked', I understood you were referring to a '3 strikes' policy or 'mandatory sentancing' policy that had succeeded in reducing crime rates. For the 3rd time, I'll ask you where were you talking about when you said 'it has worked' (assuming this is not all in your mind).

From the stuff I've read over the years about the '3 strikes' policy in parts of the US, it has been generally ineffective in reducing crime rates. Unless you know different?
 

Read my last post.

censuspro said:
Prisons are not designed to stop people from committing crime or re-offending, they are designed to house people who commit crime.
Click to expand...
censuspro said:
There is no evidence that shows any link between crime rates and rates of imprisonment. Why do we constantly refer to crime rates as an indicator for prison sentencing when there is no link between the two.
Click to expand...
 
So your solution is to ignore the causes of crime and just lock everyone up.
 
Sunny said:
So your solution is to ignore the causes of crime and just lock everyone up.
Click to expand...

The causes of crime has nothing to do with sentencing. If you want to discuss the causes of crime start another thread.

Although there is no link betwenn crimes rates and prison sentences, it is my opinion that if a recidivist is in prison and not roaming the streets they are not in position to re-offend against innocent members of society.

As a law abiding, tax paying citizen I want to know that if someone has 75 or 150 previous convictions that they will go to prison and not roam the streets where they are a threat to me, my family and the rest of society.

If someone has 150 previous convictions, they have obviously proved and made the choice that they cannot function in ordinary society.

We can try to address the causes of crime and we can build more prison with better facilities but the bottom line is that these should not be taken into account when we talk about sentencing. If you do the crime you do the time!
 
Complainer said:
as other younger (more violent, more reckless) criminals will rise up to fill the vacuum
Click to expand...

So there are younger more reckless and violent criminals out there who are just waiting for their chance, and are being held back by the criminals that are out there at the moment?

Been watching any gangster movies lately?
 
censuspro said:
The causes of crime has nothing to do with sentencing. If you want to discuss the causes of crime start another thread.
Click to expand...

I'd agree at a basic level. It isn't once the crime(s) have been committed. But the issue does come back to those crimes that get prison sentences, those crimes that are suggested are should be subject to mandatory sentences. These are the crimes committed in disadvantaged areas by and large by disadvantaged young men. Does it serve us as a society to just begin a programme of removing these people from the streets into jail without a serious effort to reduce crime running along side?

So in effect both sides are right, yes the crimes should be punished so long as the punishment fits the crime, but there has to be a concerted effort to look at what can be done to prevent the crime in the first place.

Unfortunately the emphasis on punishment hasn't worked and neither has the more liberal approach to offenders.
 
shnaek said:
So there are younger more reckless and violent criminals out there who are just waiting for their chance, and are being held back by the criminals that are out there at the moment?

Been watching any gangster movies lately?
Click to expand...
Nope - just reading the court reports in the Irish Times and the odd bit of TV news. Do you really, really think that if you lock up the current generation of drug dealers that all sales of illegal drugs will just stop?
 
shnaek said:
So there are younger more reckless and violent criminals out there who are just waiting for their chance, and are being held back by the criminals that are out there at the moment?

Been watching any gangster movies lately?
Click to expand...

You just need to look at the escalating violence in our society and news reports to see the shift in age vs level of violence.

There ARE more younger & more violent criminals out there, and its very scary.
 
I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m not sure if 3 strikes and you are out is too much of a blunt instrument but I definitely think that previous convictions should weigh far more heavily when sentencing is being determined.
The state does have a responsibility to provide security, indeed is it its primary function. Therefore while it’s not an easy fix and there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the needs of society what we have at the moment is not working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register